There are many moments in this interview that could provide fodder for discussion. For example, Christians in the UK may be rather nonplussed by Driscoll impugning their entire country for not having, well, Mark Driscoll:

Driscoll: I go too far sometimes. Almost every other pastor I know doesn’t go far enough and that’s okay ’cause the church tends to be led by people who are timid and fearful of going too far. I mean, let’s just say this. … Right now, name for me the one young good Bible teacher that’s known across Great Britain.

Brierley: Hmm …

Driscoll: You don’t have one. That is a problem. There’s a bunch of cowards who aren’t telling the truth.

Brierley: So you think that the Bible teaches …

Driscoll: You don’t have one. You don’t have one young guy who can preach the Bible that anybody’s listening to on the whole earth.

I’ll leave it to the Brits to decide whether their churches suffer from a glut of cowards and a want of controversial celebrity preachers.

Much of the interview revolved around Driscoll’s views on women and their role in marriage and the church. When Brierley confessed that his own wife is, in fact, the pastor of his church, things got incredibly awkward:

Driscoll: I’m not shocked by the answer, by the questions you ask. I love you, but you’re annoying. ‘Cause you’re picking on all the same issues that those who are classically evangelical, kind of liberal, kind of feminist do.

Brierley: I think it’s because those are the issues here that people are thinking about. … [Brierley says he’s impressed by much of what Mars Hill Church is doing].

Driscoll: Kay, let me ask you a few hard questions.

Brierley: Go ahead, go ahead.

Driscoll: So, in the church that your wife pastors, how many young men have come to Christ in the last year?

[It’s clear from the tone of Driscoll’s question that this is not a bona fide inquiry about the souls in Brierley’s church. It’s a veiled criticism. Driscoll is going to prove that women pastors can’t get the job done (i.e. attracting men to the church) and he’s going to belittle Brierley’s wife & church to do it.]

Brierley: Well we’re not a huge church, unlike yours, but I’d say there’s two or three probably in the last year who certainly, yah, I’d say have come to Christ in a pretty meaningful way.

Driscoll: Okay and in the church, what percentage is young men, single men?

Brierley: It’s difficult to say off the top of my head, but I’ll freely say it’s certainly not a big percentage, no.

Driscoll: Kay, and are you okay with that? Do you think that’s the best way to go?

Brierley: No, but can it be so easily put down to the fact that the church is being run by a woman? I mean, is that …

Driscoll: Yup. Yup. You look at your results, you look at my results, and you look at the variable that’s most obvious.

[Yes, he did just say that. His results are better than hers. And it’s because he’s a man and she’s a woman.]

Brierley: Well, in our case, the …

Driscoll: This is where the excuses come, not the verses. This is where the excuses come, not the verses.

Brierley: … Up to the point my wife took over, it had been run by men. Since she’s come, lots of new families, lots of younger people, both men and women, have come. I wouldn’t say the balance is right perfect yet by any means. But it’s certainly a lot better than it ever was. And so I don’t necessarily see quite the same situation that you paint there in terms of men not relating. I see more men in the church since she’s been there than before she was there, in a way.

Driscoll: What kind of men? Strong men?

[The implication here is obvious. Only weak, limp-wristed mama’s boys would be attracted to a church with a female leader, right? Tough men like Driscoll certainly wouldn’t be. Brierley seems genuinely baffled by such a stupid question.]

Brierley: Well, men. I mean, men come in different shapes and sizes. I mean, yah, both really. Men who are very masculine, men who are, I guess, on a spectrum, more effeminate. But I couldn’t say that there’s been a sort of dearth of men in the church since she’s arrived. I mean, Mark, I don’t want to get into a sort of argument.

Driscoll: No, no, you don’t want to sit in my seat, I understand. So does your wife do counseling with men? Sexual counseling? Does she talk about masturbation, pornography, the stuff that I do?

Brierley: Well no, she doesn’t.

Driscoll: Well, who does talk to the men about those things, especially the young men?

Brierley: Well there are other people that she can pass them on to. We have male elders in our church who, you know, would be able to tackle those kinds of questions. I mean, but would you speak with those kinds of issues to a female in your church?

Driscoll: Uh no. If they’re a married couple we might meet with them as a couple. But if it’s a woman, we would have women leaders meet with them.

Brierley: Sure, well it’s the same scenario in our church really.

Driscoll: Well except for who’s in charge.

[This part is almost comical. Driscoll seems to think he’s got a real zinger. If a woman is pastor, who’s going to do all that important sex counseling that Driscoll seems so obsessed with? Faced with the rather obvious explanation that it’s the same in Brierley’s church as in his own (men counsel men and women counsel women) Driscoll insists that it’s still not as good because the men aren’t “in charge”.]

Brierley: Well what’s wrong with… I mean, I agree, obviously theologically we’re not on the same page here Mark in terms of…

Driscoll: Do you believe in a conscious literal eternal torment of hell?

Brierley: What has that got to do with the issue of women in leadership, if you don’t mind me asking?

Driscoll: It does. It depends on your view of God. Is God like a mom who just embraces everyone? Or is he like a father who also protects, and defends, and disciplines? If you won’t answer the question, I think I know the answer.

Driscoll goes on to grill Brierley about whether he believes in penal substitution. When Brierley replies that it’s a valid way of understanding the meaning of the cross, Driscoll isn’t satisfied, calls him a “coward”, and eventually tells him to stop “drinking decaf” and get “more courage”.

It’s clear that Driscoll’s male supremacy vibe has implications for all of his theology. Eternal conscious torment is a tough, manly doctrine and, therefore, superior to weak womanly ideas that don’t involve a literal fiery hell. Real men, brave men espouse a penal substitution theory of atonement without reservation. Those who prefer a more nuanced understanding are effeminate cowards.

You see, if you have doctrinal differences with Mark Driscoll, you don’t just disagree with him; you are inferior to him. And he’s got the church-growth results to prove it.

There’s so much more that could be said, but I’ll leave that to others. Besides, given that I don’t share Driscoll’s doctrinal stances, I’ve probably got to go paint my nails or tease my hair or something.

**************************

[Edit: Based on a few of the comments I’ve received on this post, I want to add some clarification. I would be the first to agree that by no means is Driscoll this abrasive throughout the entire interview. Most of the time, he and Brierley got along fine (although I think the mood soured a bit at around the 17 minute mark when Driscoll called Brierley “immature” for asking what I thought was a perfectly legitimate question).

Some have wondered whether these quotes are taking Driscoll out of context. The first quote about the “cowards” in UK churches (28 minute mark) came in the context of Driscoll being asked if he regretted his Facebook comment that encouraged people to share stories about “effeminate anatomically male worship leaders”. He agreed that he had gone too far but then said what you see transcribed above. Seems beset with regret, doesn’t he?

The transcribed portion of the interview about women takes you from 49:40 through 53:30. Everything is there (except a few lines by Brierley about admiring Mars Hill, which I summarized for brevity). My square bracketed interjections do not represent missing context. What you read above is the entire 4 minute exchange. Yes, there is context before and context after. But I fail to see how that minimizes the legitimate concerns about what he said in the middle. I can understand a one-liner being “taken out of context”. It’s hard to take 4 solid minutes of conversation out of context. You can listen to the full interview here.]

Well why didnt Brierley mention him? Clearly at his church they dont listen to NTW or maybe he could have come up with that name. It shows that there are many churches in the UK that are just kind of stagnent. They dont even listen to influentional teachers in the area.
Also, the use of young is realitive. Young can refer to the type of culture. While Driscal isnt young by any means, he teaches to a young audience, NTW while amazing, is not someone that draws in young people.

Jim, me thinks that comment is painted with a pretty broad brush, now who is valuing perceived truth over love? Most reformed men have deep and profound love, but start with doctrine as the tie that binds us together. I am one of them.

Yes, Paul I agree! I will try to keep my comments clean. Mark is an addict. He was raised in spiritual filth, met a girl (his wife) and views her as his savior. He feels inferior to her and she uses her Christian upbringing to manipulate, dominate and enable his addictions to sex, power, rage, fame and money. His wife is his biggest enabler as her dominance and superiority further drives his hatred of and need to belittle women outside of his home. He feels so dirty and powerless around his wife, he abuses his position as a church leader to FEEL power. He talks about how, without his wife, he would be an addict. Unfortunately, they are both deceived and are practicing addicts. Instead of walking in addictions which would keep him from making money selling the fake jesus he created, he spiritualizes his addictions which are fueled by his wife. The tragedy is for all the people in Mark’s church who have fallen into the trap of worshiping Mark and his wife, as if they are all back in high school. The clothes that Mark and his wife wear are reflective of their immaturity and attempts to promote themselves. Mark was student body president in high school and his wife a school princess. Instead of growing up, they have spiritualized their need for attention by using and selling the name of the fake jesus they have created for self promotion. Their children are suffering as they leave them at home to travel around the country promoting and selling themselves. Mark’s rage causes him to actually ENJOY making enemies as he sees it as having power over them. His children will suffer as their family reputation is such a public train wreck, due to their parents public addictions.

You would think, even though he has a large church following, that since so many views are out there, not all of which agree with his own, that he might have enough humility to at least concede he doesn’t corner the market on Biblical truth and knowledge. But somehow he’s decided he’s the arbiter of truth and anyone who sees it differently is a coward, and wrong and probably headed for hell. While he does have a large following, he’s probably doing more harm than good for the cause of Christ.

Yup. I live in Seattle, and we have support groups here of people who have left Mars Hill and are trying to recover from spiritual abuse. A bit like post-traumatic stress syndrome. Too bad Justin’s church can’t make that claim!! Oh, wait! That’s because he’s a coward!! If you disagree, you’re not only wrong, but inferior. He’s a bully. Pure and simple.

Having lived in the UK, I was stunned by the rudeness and arrogance of MD’s attack. No wonder the interviewer didn’t respond to the “young” issue. (No Mark, you’re no longer young, so grow up!)

MD did himself, the global Church, and Americans in general a great disservice. Brits would see him as an Ugly American, arrogant, self-assured, and unwilling to engage in debate because he’s considers himself a little god-who-knows-Truth.

The incredible thing for me–and what caught my attention to this whole issue–was reading Mark’s wah wah wah, they tried to hurt me, and disrespected my wife, afterwords. Oh. Wait. Didn’t he say some really nasty things about the interviewer’s wife AND pastor? If MD had shut up on his long rants, the interviewer would have had time to ask Mark’s wife some intelligent questions.

Depending on where you live: new multicultural church opening in the Kirkland Performing Arts Center last weekend; excellent church in N Seattle: Creekside Assembly. Ryan Meeks has a large “young” congregation in Mill Creek (N Seattle); Renton Assembly in Renton, etc.

Wow, this is one of the most awkward things I’ve ever heard. I’ve been cutting Driscoll some slack, since it’s easy to take on a harsher tone when you write or when you preach, but man… If this is what he’s like in one-to-one conversations, then he truly is a douche.

All Emergent Leaders are Douches, False Teachers and very Cowardly, not Driscoll. You Emergent Bozo’s don’t seem to get that JESUS would respond to you like He did with the Pharisees and Scribes of His day. His Tone and Words were harsh.

Emergents are deceiving people into a Literal Hell with a False Gospel and with Another Jesus. You deserve more than a few Harsh Words and Accurate Judgement from a Servant of God like Driscoll.

Hopefully, you will buy some EYE-SALVE from Jesus and REPENT of your Foolishness and False Gospel Preaching.

2CORINTHIANS 11:4
For if someone comes along and preaches ANOTHER JESUS than the one we preached, or should you receive a DIFFERENT SPIRIT from the one you received or a DIFFERENT GOSPEL from the one you accepted, you are all too willing to listen.

2PETER 2:1-2
But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their lascivious doings; by reason of whom the way of the truth shall be evil spoken of.

2PETER 2:17
These Teachers are springs without water, and mists driven by a storm; for whom the blackness of darkness hath been reserved. For, uttering great swelling words of vanity, they entice in the lusts of the flesh, by lasciviousness, those who are just escaping from them that live in error; promising them liberty, while they themselves are bondservants of corruption; for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he also brought into bondage.

By comparison to the Spirit of God and His Holy Word, YOU EMERGENTS are GIRLY MEN…….this is fact and evident before all who truly do have the SAME HOLY SPIRIT that Paul received and Preached about…..

Wow. So if I say that i am a Bible-believing Christian who has given his life to serving Jesus through youth ministry and church planting, I am a false teacher unless I agree with you? I think you need to be careful when you call people Pharisees. Are you sure it’s me that’s the Pharisee?

Matt 7:

1 Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
2 For in the same way as you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

Driscol is not Jesus. No one should ever respond with the harshness of God. Only God can judge motives perfectly and without fault. We are called to love, and bring the good news. Also, where does the bible teach of “Girly men” or anyone else being less valued by God or Christ. Does he not love us all? Who is Driscol to hate or humiliate any of God’s creation…? He is another faliable human being, with finite human thoughts and beliefs.

The trouble with fundies is their pie-plate helmeted heads can’t handle nuance, irony, or satire. Like 5-year-olds, they take everything literally. Their Bible boneheadedness results from an inability to comprehend anything beyond comic books.

And we wonder WHY the church in the US of A is in deplorable condition? When this goes for the good news of Jesus, you’ve got to be kidding me. You can’t read the gospels and see Jesus and Driscoll in the same light. No way, no how.

As a Christian Pastor living in the UK but born in the great US of A I think comments like this are best left unsaid. While Mark Driscoll certainly makes himself look terrible sometimes he does not reflect even a tiny percentage of American Pastors. He is one man.

One of the things which amazes me constantly is the Anti-American-Church attitude present in a huge number of Brits. Is the Church in America in a deplorable position? Absolutely not! Rather, the church in the Western World isn’t doing so great.

Sorry, but it’s true. With very few exceptions, American-style Christianity can only be described as pure insanity by anyone looking in from the outside. It’s because the market is completely over-saturated with churches, resulting in heavy competition. So only the loudest, craziest, most fundamentalist have “success”

I’m afraid it’s a classic case of mass-generalisation based on limited knowledge. We Brits hear about the extremist Christians such as Driscoll, Phelps, even the Republican candidates, and we think that ‘all or most American church leaders must be the same’, Every human being does something like this at some point in their life, but of course it’s not an excuse for us Brits.

I’m well aware that American Christianity is mostly good. I listen to frequent podcasts by a pastor called Jeff of Jacob’s Well church. He’s great.

Chris, I’m sure the rest of this is well written and relevant, but I could only get through half. That’s no slam on you, I just couldn’t stomach anymore quotes from Driscoll. It was curdling the coffee in my stomach…

Man, this article bums me out. I tend to like Driscoll, theologically, But he gets in these very bully-ish modes and for all his “everything has to be done scriptually” stance he mentions, he didn’t use scripture once.

It isnt bullying to say Christians should follow Christ. The Bible says how we should do things and everything should be done according to the Bible. Read it and follow it. Why is that wrong? Also, if he speaks the scripture but doesnt quote the book and chapter, would you even know it? Do you know the scripture well enough to say this isnt what is in it?

Read it.

Jesus wasnt a push over. He took a whip and drove people out of the temple, thats right, whipping them. God in the old testament sent plagues, started wars and killed entire nations because of their disobedience. Yes, “everything has to be done scripturally” is very important. God has consequences for sin. He is the same God as in the Old testament. He hasnt changed. Just like a good father, there is punishment for disobedience. It isnt about leading a fat-and-happy-american-dream kind of life. It is serious business to follow scripture. Read it and you can decide if he is right or not.

Gotta say, can’t fathom that Jesus whipped people to drive them out of the temple – it doesn’t say that, and it makes sense he would have used it on the animals. Not to mention that when he was whipped a week later, he would have been getting what he deserved, which would seriously mess up our theology.

Jesus didn’t whip people to enforce proper doctrine, He did it because He was appalled at the way people were disrespecting His father. That is hardly Driscoll’s approach in his abusive nature. I don’t find an ounce of his actions/attitude being for the sake of defending the Lord. It very much seems like he enjoys being a tough-guy Christian, reveling in the fact that he’s so comfortable being offensive. Don’t be an idiot.

perhaps you should read the whole thing yourself. I would be surprised if you do everything mentioned in the Bible, especially OT verses.

I hope you get past your blind following of guys like Driscoll. God gave you a brain and a heart to use it. I would say that perhaps you use some ‘courage’ and some faith that God might actually have your back as you explore reality.

David & Kara: yes!
C and others: OH MY GOODNESS is ANYONE reading the same Bible? Where do we get off thinking it’s truth OR love as exclusive entities? YES, we FOR SURE need to be obedient, follow Scripture, stand up for the truth in a wishy washy world. YES, we FOR SURE need to be loving and respectful to our fellow image bearers, especially ones we just met, especially ones in a public forum where others are watching us, especially ones who we call our brothers. If we can’t do it in a loving, respectful manner, we are just a clashing cymbal…and I can quote 1 Cor. 13:1 on that.
If I were a non-believer and read this, I certainly would have no interest in becoming a Christian. “They’ll know we are Christians by our love”—love for God in holding to Biblical truth and doing what He says even when it’s hard, AND love for others in treating them respectfully in a way we’d want to be treated. It’s an AND/AND situation, NOT an EITHER/OR.

While I continue to be shocked at Driscoll’s buffoonery, I’m increasingly of the opinion that he’s not worth the attention we give him. He generates attention from his followers at least in part because those of us who oppose him give him that attention. I think we need to just stop giving Driscoll the attention that he wants.

Do you guys realize that the Gospel is offensive? Until you figure out what tough love is, you are going to be missing out on a lot of great biblical teachings! Jesus was hated by a lot of people… mostly the people that think that they know it all! So humble yourselves while reading the gospel and you too will see the glory of God being revealed in offensive teachings!

Do you realize Jesus never made it a point to offend people? The truth is offensive enough to people who cling to worldliness without the person delivering the truth doing it in the most offensive way possible. Driscoll is intentionally offensive, something Jesus never was.

It’s not fair to explain someone else’s oppinion away by saying they need to ‘humble’ themselves and read. The implication is that you know more than everyone else because you are so humble. You have to see that yours is not a humble position at all.

And while I agree that the new testament was offensive to those that were invested in an exclusive religious system, the reason it is called “Good News” is because it made salvation possible, and the church radically inclusive. Nothing in there condones boorish or offensive behaviour on our part.

Please realise that what you just said confirms what Driscoll was saying in the interview. The young guys finally have a pastor they can listen to without questioning their masculinity for doing so. C.H. Spurgeon (British, Reformed, “radical”) also had no use for limp-wristed, effeminate pastors: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/04/manly-men.html

I’m actually more or less part of Driscoll’s theological tribe. But this is embarrassing. The great problem is to watch as Driscoll and others sacrifice the fruit of the Spirit for the litmus test of numbers. It is impossible to read the NT and walk away with the impression that it is more important for a preacher to have a large congregation than be kind. But that’s probably too limp-wristed.

wow. i can understand when someone has a differing theological viewpoint, but not when they can’t articulate it in a way that is gracious and humble. but i guess real men are not called to be gracious and humble in speech and action.

A large church following doesn’t necessarily mean that the leaders are following Christ. There have been many leaders in the past and some leaders now who have very large congregations who don’t preach Christ and who clearly don’t follow him. Driscoll seems to be basing his success on numbers and the numbers of men in the two congregations. Is Christianity only a men’s religion? I don’t think so. One can look into the Bible and see quite quickly how Jesus treated women and the fact that the first people he appeared to after his resurrection were women speaks volumes.

I guess NT Wright doesn’t count because he’s not “young.” Driscoll might as well have added “hip” to the rubric for his definition of effective ministry. It will be interesting to see what Driscoll’s criteria will be in 20 years, when he himself will no longer be young (and maybe not hip, either).

Mark Driscoll is not teaching the bible and he’s not a good bible teacher either.

He’s teaching angry young men of a certain ilk what they want to hear: that their sense of inferiority will be healed not by accepting themselves as God’s good creation but by dissing women as inferior. This is the kind of thinking that emotionally immature and mentally ill people engage in: I cannot be a person of dignity unless I take diminish someone else’s dignity. That’s exactly what Jesus preached against.

Mark Driscoll provides a role model for anger and abusive, immature behaviour and models to young me with those tendencies that this outlook is not only OK, it is blessed by God.

He should learn about projection too. He is telling anyone with any knowledge of psychology that he is obsessed with sex, masturbation and pornography. If he actually said that to his elders, I think they’d have him out the door, but apparently they are too clueless to realize that’s what he’s saying.

The human mind doesn’t process the instruction to “Don’t think about something”. What he is preaching is “masturbation, masturbation, masturbation, sex, sex, sex.” Gee, I wonder why some single young men are attracted to his message.

Very well said Pam, apart from one thing – the ability of Driscoll’s elders to sack him. A few years ago he changed the constitution of his church – I’ve seen the new one and it reads like it belongs to a third-world dictatorship. It is complex and convoluted, but effectively gives Driscoll a job for life by making it virtually impossible for him to be removed from his position. Those who questioned the change were thrown out of the church.

THANK GOD FOR DRISCOLL !!! – finally some convictions and results. Maybe, with his comments about women taking on leadership in the church and a despicable lack of male leadership in many church in the UK, we may get some guys who wont snicker like a teenage girl and stand up for a crucified, risen & victorious Saviour. We’d probably same the same thing about John the Baptist if we were back in 1st Cent Israel.

Oh no, not at all, I wasn’t comparing Driscoll to John the Baptist. It was directed to the cynics who are so wrapped up with the media window dressing that they can’t say “Maybe this Driscoll guy, wars & all has a point”

What is so great about ‘convictions and results’? Felons get convicted. Conviction implies bondage to a certain worldview. Why do I have to hold on to my belief so tightly? Sometimes our theology gets in the way of us discovering God. I really want to find Him and will sacrifice anything. Even my convictions. John Calvin said the mind is an idol factory. Our theology and beliefs about God really are mental images. I don’t want the image. I want Him. Anything less is idolatry.
You might criticize me as being weak then because I don’t want to believe my images at all costs. But Christianity isn’t about me being strong. It’s about Jesus being strong. In my weakness He is strong. ‘Blessed are the meek,’ so why should I try to not be meek? That is what I find uncomfortable with Driscoll. Where is the weakness and meekness that Jesus exalted as a blessing?

And what’s the deal with results? What does it matter how many people attend on a Sunday? At the end of his life, even the disciples fled Jesus. He had a total following of about 5 on the cross. Jesus isn’t about being popular.
But more than that, getting people into pews doesn’t save them. Love saves. And this interview doesn’t feel loving. Ultimately, we can’t save people. It’s not our job. Jesus saves. All we can do is show them Gods love. The only person you really have control over eschatologically is yourself. And if you can’t make yourself loving, how can you do it to others? I’m not critiquing Driscoll so much as I don’t know him. Im talking about the way we do church in general. God won’t ask you how many Sunday’s you attended. He won’t ask you how big your church is. He won’t ask you what your theology is. He won’t ask you how many people you got to convert. He won’t quiz you on the bible. He wont ask you about your church growth model. He wont ask how popular you were. God will ask you if you love Him and His children.

Language of convictions and results rely heavily on us. It’s our power. Our beliefs. Our ministries. Our church. Our theology. Our mission. Isn’t it blessed foolishness to be able to admit that all things belong to God and that we, us, and our are nothing?

Justin did great, but he dropped the ball in giving names to Driscoll, while of course NT Wright and John Hick are legendary, Driscoll would be looking for someone like Daniel Strange, who is just like Driscoll theologically, but a bit nicer and more dialogical with non-conservatives.

Driscoll’s challenge is a rhetorical strategy that works well in spoken speech, such as a debate, where the person has to think of names “on the spot”, but once written down, gives people the time to think of names at their own pace. Which meant that he came off looking like he had a point precisely until this all got into print.

Hey Karl – if there are some solid UK based biblical teachers, let me (us) know. I’d be keen to hear them. I think Driscoll was saying if we had a UK equivalent to a John Piper, Matt Chandler, Josh Harris, CJ Mahaney, Paul Washer, John MacArthur, etc. Be good to see what you have. Thanks / Brad M

I think the point is that we don’t have such a celebrity-based culture. I can think of preachers in my own town who are younger and better than Driscoll, they’re just not famous. Also, they are not in Mark’s tribe. The church in the UK is now a tiny minority and is basically ignored by the majority, so national celebrity doesn’t really work in the same way. And the very narrow conservative evangelical/reformed church (which would provide the kind of preachers of which Driscoll would approve) tends to keep to itself and doesn’t have a high profile nationally, except on issues that the media like to pick up on such as sexuality and women in leadership. He’s comparing apples and pears.

I think it’s so stupid to bash M. Driscoll for what he says and how he acts. I mean, what do you want people? Another motivational speaker like Joel Osteen that picks bible verses at random and throws in a “yes you can” at the end? Nothing and no one will ever be good enough! Get over it! The Gospel is to be lived and not discussed!

DJ, where is the Gospel in what Driscoll speaks? That’s my issue with him most of the time. Where is grace, and humility, and sacrifice, and service? I don’t get a lot of that form Driscoll, and certainly not here.

You miss the point when you bring up Osteen, as if the other extreme is the only option. There is a middle ground and it is the powerful, true, and full expression of the Gospel with no pretense or ego.

My concern is that Driscoll seems to be most fixated on building an empire instead of advancing the Kingdom.

You what’s funny? I don’t share that point of view at all AB. I’ve only known about MH and Driscoll for about 6 months and as a natural skeptical I’ve been immersing myself in everything MH and what’s in relation to it like, The Resurgence, Acts 29 and so on so I can understand what all this fuss about him is about and what it seems to me is that all this guys is trying to do is lead people to Jesus. How do you do that? You preach the truth how it is and that’s what people need/want to hear. I don’t understand why people get so butt hurt when he says: “Right now, name for me the one young good Bible teacher that’s known across Great Britain.” I mean, you’re not mad at him because that’s inaccurate, you’re mad at him because of his tone! Well, guess what HE’S HUMAN! Was that rude? Yes! Have you ever been rude? I’m sure you have. I know I have! Just ’cause he’s a pastor it doesn’t automatically means he won’t be rude. I mean, this guy has a STRONG personality!! I’m sure there are great preachers in Great Britain, they’re just not bringing in as many young single men as he is. Does that come off a little condescending? Sure but instead of criticizing we should stop and think about how we could reach as many people as possible because Jesus is going to come back and ask us about it…
I don’t know if you’ve ever listened to any of MD’s sermon series. There is a whole lotta gospel in there my friend! And the bottom line is: We just need to stop criticizing and start focusing ON THE GOSPEL. We focus too much on everything else! Now Joel Osteen… I can’t really can’t see any gospel coming from that guy but I don’t judge!

Hey, Osteen says he preaches in the name of Jesus and his church is the biggest church in like, ever… the dude never even went to seminary… am I gonna argue over that? GOD is so merciful he just blesses us despite our human ways and here we are arguing over it like a bunch of religious idiots.
We share the same name by the way…

Read his side too and listen to the hour long. Everything can be edited down to be unflattering. If the same message still holds true in the whole interview, then make your judgement. Do not do so, before hearing a man out. Sensationalism reigns supreme these days on all sides, so use your senses to combat it, and then get back to the debating now more enlightened.

ChasefromtheUS, problem is that this isn’t the only example of Driscoll being Driscoll available to the public. I think most people have all the info they need to know who Mark is and what he stands for.

Notice how, as you partly acknowledged, when Justin answers all Mark’s questions about his wife’s church, Driscoll resorts to…

*drumroll*…

…a CIRCULAR argument! Namely, “women should not be in charge, and to prove it I’ll ask Justin some questions, (Justin answers), yea but your answers aren’t good enough because your wife is still in charge”!

You are just as foolish as him for blogging about him in this way. People will naturally recognize his folly, if they didn’t/don’t, you pointing it out won’t change their perception of him, just of you. Now you are just as guilty for casting your judgement upon him publicly, revealing your own arrogance.

Oscar, I did my best to provide context to the above excerpts from the interview. I did not grab one-liners. I reproduced whole segments of conversation precisely to avoid taking things out of context. If you feel that there is more context that will help explain some of the above, please explain what that context is. Failing that, it sounds to me as though you are just parroting the “I may be selectively edited” excuse that Driscoll offered on his blog.

With a big pinch of bias and slant…. Let’s face it listening to the interview it’s obvious it was not about his book but a big setup to discredit him. Only towards the end is the truth of this masked contempt revealed and then he turns the tables. Where the interviewer stammers and flounders as this was not supposed to give opportunity to highlight his own floors… Classic turnaround lol this whole follow up is just an attempt to feel less stupid. Man up and get over it.

I had heard about this man called Driscoll who appears to spend more time trying to justify why women should not lead Churches than Lead people to Christ through demonstrating Love. All Ii have read here seems to be an arrogant angry freudian demonstration which seems so far removed from the God I know to attempt to bully his way to a winning argument for What reason? Please Mr Driscol consider the impact you are having on young impressionable people. We want people to know a gracous loving God and see a depiction of arrogance claiming to know better. Humble yourself and learn to Love. Especially the women whom GOd fearfully and wonderfully made

Maybe you should actually listen to the podcast instead of judging a man who has devoted his entire life to ministry… If you want to talk about arrogance, it think your post based on such a complete lack of information really personifies it…

Brierly is wayyyy too submissive. If you let someone else define what is best, there’s no way you are going to have a reasonable argument with them. I would challenge the measurements used for success. If it is numbers of people? Numbers of men, versus women? Maculine men versus feminine men (sensitive, thoughtful, non-aggressive? Those are invalid measurements.

Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion–several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven….The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.
– “The Lowest Animal” Mark Twain

Great post. I have just read through the comments and wanted to add the following.

1. You have done a great job in conveying the context despite what some say. The main point is that he actually said what you have written.

2. I am saddened by Driscoll but I am also saddened by the people who suggest that it is wrong to criticise him or highlight his folly. This is too important to ignore. He is a bully and bullies thrive when people stay silent.

3. Perhaps the worst part of the episode is his attempt to defend his position on his own blog by complaining about the interviewer. Cowardly if you ask me.

BTW my wife and two of my daughters are church leaders – he wouldn’t stand a chance in a debate if he ever met them.

since, I really like the real jesus, but am not much like him yet, my response to driscoll, at an emotional level, would be jump him, stick my thumbs in his eyes, and murder him for the good of the human race. But that is not the way of Jesus. that is the way of the antichrist, which is the way of mark driscoll. he is spiritually abusive, just go ask the people who left his church.

I listened to the audio and have to say that I am a little taken back by how slanted this blog post is. I also wonder if most of the people leaving comments even bothered to listen to the full interview. Driscoll has his faults for sure but has also born a lot of fruit in his life.

Glad I unfriended this rubberneck flapjack on Facebook long ago. Instead of simply preaching Christ, he delights in going out of the way to criticize and malign others for not seeing things the same way as he. He is a blight upon the American institutional church, and reminds me why I’m no longer a part of it.

Very interesting. As a woman in ministry, his pov isn’t news. It’s happened before and will happen again, because people need God and people aren’t God. Not even Mark Driscoll.

The reality is many men do prefer male leadership, but not all. For this reason, the Bible has one Deborah. One confident and courageous woman who led an army into battle.

It would be foolish to ignore the many men of the Bible and their leadership skills and their failures which get repeated. But the blessings of being in the body of Christ include the value of both the red blood cells and the white.

Deborah was a prophetess, in charge of Israel, but in no way did she lead an army into battle. For the military leadership it was neccessary to call Barak. God has not created women to be in charge in military way. Though Deborah could be the person Barak needed to counsel, it was he that lead the army. Men were created by God to be military leaders, capable of protecting their wives and the family – and that can be an allegory for even spiritual warfare. Without a strong leader, there’s no victory.

I don’t mean to be facetious, but your comment made me laugh. Mainly because the God I see in Jesus Christ is the God of peace. Christ is the Prince of Peace and blessed are the peacemakers. So saying that military leadership is male does nothing but revolt me. I detest violence. War is hell. So what does it say that men are the leaders of hell? I dont mean to say that women somehow escape the violent tendencies of humanity. When humans are the leaders, we get nothing but violence, war, and destruction. Male or female, humans were not meant to rule. That’s why we call Jesus our Lord and King. God alone rules. Saying that men are capable militarily does not prove your point about women. It proves that humans are capable of leading themselves into violence and that we should stop tryin to take charge and let Jesus take over.

Is it foolish to teach our children to obey us while we are unwilling to be obedient to God? That is what we do when we refuse to sumit to the authority of scripture. In Deuteronomy 30, we are clearly shown the God’s people have to choice between death, and life, between blessings and curses. If we choose to obey scripture, to live according to the laws, and instructions of scripture, we will be blessed and prosper, otherwise, we are choosing to be disobedient to God.

Scripture speaks very clearly to the issue of a woman’s authority in the home and in the church. I find it deeply troubling for someone to claim to teach scripture without obeying it. The legacy of disobedience will follow generationally.

No doubt we as women are called to serve God, but HE clearly describes what that should look like. We as women have a higher and harder calling when we submit to the authority of God and serve Him the way the Bible says, it goes against our sin nature which tempts us to try to rule over men.

We must read the Bible and believe it to be true before we make decisions, and definitely before we teach it to others. If we are called to Christ, we are called to be different than the world, not to change the Bible to fit the world.

You make a very good point. Your logic is impeccable. And I admire your courage, obedience, and spirit.
But I don’t think scripture speaks with one voice on this subject. I don’t think scripture speaks with one voice on any subject. That debate is too long for here. I just want you to be aware that people who disagree with you do believe and follow scripture. I believe that the most faithful rendering of scripture would allow women to be pastors, and I am very capable of producing verses and scriptural arguments to prove it. (not saying in right though)
Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy produced a book which compares issues in modern theology. It presents different views on issues like women in ministry or providence and then provides arguments for both sides. The really great feature is that every argument has a deep scriptural reliance. Even bible believing Christians can disagree. The bible is not an ultimate authority, since it does not settle issues like these, whether you think it should or not there are still disagreements.
I would say that the only solution to this authority crises is God. I certainly trust him more than I do the bible. Try it sometime.

Mark Driscoll comes across as a bully plain and simple. Faith in the Gospel allows us to be simultaneously bold in the truth yet gracious and compassionate because of the grace shown to us by Jesus. In spite of all Pastor Driscoll’s “success” – whatever that means, he appears to have not grasped this concept.

I think your commentary is clearly bias. Your entire article from the commentary on the picture of Brierly to the [inserts] are all designed to paint Brierly as a saint and to demonize Driscoll. I’m sure i can take clips of an hour long conversation with you and make you look ridiculous.

If you dont like what he said, I dont get why you have to try to publicize it…? If you spent the same amount of time loving on people in a Christ-like way, your time would be better used.

Spencer, I can assure you that the pictures of Driscoll and Brierley were chosen without any malicious intent. They just happened to be roughly the same size. Plus, I’m pretty sure Driscoll uses that very picture of himself for promotional material.

“For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” Say, for the sake of argument, you share Driscoll’s theology of manhood…how then is the measure of a ministry how many strong, masculine men are brought into your church? A doctor who prides himself on how healthy his patients are when they walk _in_ the door is quite silly indeed. And if his use of that measure means he is dismissive toward taking or acknowledging or being pleased to acquire new patients who are less than healthy, then he hardly deserves to be called a doctor at all.

And how do you figure that, across an entire country, you can say there isn’t a single acceptable leader? There could be hundreds, thousands. Does a church leader not only have to be sufficiently manly, but sufficiently famous and attention-seeking that you have heard of him from across the Atlantic, to be worthy and helpful to the church? And why are we boasting of our manly strength in the first place instead of in our weakness that the Lord’s strength may be shown? This is a frustrating interview to read.

I recognise this blog post only presents edited sections of an interview, but they do confirm my thoughts that Mark Driscoll often comes across as a arrogant leader, who will often criticise others to bolster his own position.

No doubt, many have come to faith in Driscoll’s church, but time and again, as a listener to his messages, I find myself asking whether people see Jesus Christ in it their leader. This blog post does not help me answer the question in any positive way.

…and this was broadcast? Seems to me the enemy is the only one who’s laughing.

Agreed. I love Mr. B but have often cringed at what his Christian guests have said on air. Often his non-Christian guests set the example for how constructive dialogue should ensue between faith perspectives. 😦

listen to the whole message before you make deductions about the character of a man. You admit that you assume it is 1-sided, listen to the other side before you characterise someone. True reporting and also research of someone (driscoll’s)character should be made with all the facts, not just some.

This entry doesn’t seem fair. I know Driscoll can be very abraisive, but without hearing it on audio or video, its hard to know what’s really going on here, with the cutting in and out of the conversation and adding comentary.

does he even read a book? Is he aware of Stott, Bauchkam, Wright, and Dunn? Does he even know about the motherly metaphors describing YHWH in the OT. What’s wrong with this man? He isn’t preaching the gospel. i’m ashamed to be a believer when i see stuff like this.

Having read this blog and http://www.cognitivediscopants.wordpress.com I had formed the opinion that Mark Driscoll was one of those stereotypical arrogant macho male preachers. However then I listened to the interview in its entirety. I ended up having a lot of sympathy for Mark Driscoll. I think Justin Brierley was trying to create issues and spark controversy where there wasn’t. In an interview that was supposed to be of the Driscolls as a couple, Justin only addressed one single question to Grace Driscoll. Either Justin is a very poor and/or rude interviewer or he had his own agenda and including Grace Driscolls did fit in with it.

Well said. I fear that Mark might be going a bit mad and may have got a little defensive. However, within the context of the entire radio program, I thought that he spoke very clearly and politely (mostly).

I personally believe in substitutionary atonement, predestination, and all that cool grace stuff. It’s real and it’s a blessing.

…but..

from the first time I saw Driscoll describe a “fight club” Jesus with tattoos and wanting to kick ass, something didn’t really resonate with how Jesus described Himself: “Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart.” The Bible says, “the humble shall be exalted and the proud shall be abased.” And, “be ready to give a defense…with meekness and fear.”

I was in Driscoll’s shoes once…a strong and mean Calvinist…and then my judgmental tongue came to bite me in the ass in the very areas where I was judging others. My guess is that Driscoll will fail morally. And hopefully when he does we won’t kick his ass when God humbles him. “Brethren, if any of you is overtaken in a fault, you which are spiritual restore such a one in meekness..”

This is a serious issue. But the problem is that people either go to Driscoll’s mean side or to the other flimsy doctrine-less side. There is a balance. We are called to preach sound doctrine, but to do it with meekness.

Now, I do appreciate Driscoll addressing the typically taboo subjects of sex, masturbation, and pornography. These are just like any other sins. Not worse, not better. They should be talked about openly inasmuch as pride and bitterness should be talked about openly. We shouldn’t punish someone who commits a sexual sin anymore than we punish someone for having pride. After all, “a proud look is an abomination.” Prov 6. We simply need to make the topic of sexual addictions just as accessible as lying or cheating or temper tantrums etc. We are all humans struggling with our diverse vices.

So, Mark will be humbled. It may take time but he will be humbled. The writing is on the wall and he will fall hard. And Lord willing when he his humbled, we will have tender hearts to restore him in a spirit of meekness. He obviously has some great gifts, but sometimes we abuse those gifts and abusing those gifts can hurt people.

May God give all of us unction and power to preach the Gospel in an effective way while demonstrating the meekness and gentleness of Christ.

SO Driscoll undertakes sexual counseling with his flock and talks about masturbation and pornography. I wonder whether he, or his female ‘subordinates’, or indeed anyone, in his church, help congregants to grapple with issues of climate change, environmental responsibility, living responsibly and assisting with developing nations, working with asylum seekers and recently settled refugees, and the countless related ethical issues involved in living as a disciple. Or is it onloy sex that counts?

[…] about marriage (which is more properly about his obsession with sex). This morning I ran across a post that recounts a recent conversation between Driscoll and British radio host Justin Brierly (from the radio program Unbelievable). In the interview, Driscoll implies, among other things, that […]

I feel very sad about this. This kind of folk Christianity draws people in on a promise of material success and intellectual correctness, yet will only deliver the failure of a human being rooted in their own hubris. It is a salient lesson to us all to avoid excessive ego when invoking the name of God.

Does he expect all young men to be UFC loving, construction working, wife beaters to be in every church? I’m not a big build, flap top guy at all. I’m skinny, doesn’t like sports all that much, and apart of a very effective ministry. My pastor is a man, but the point is that he (Driscoll) isn’t meeting people where they are at. He expects everyone to be buff and brash. Being bold has nothing to do with how tough you are as a person, it has to do with who you are in Christ. King David was a kid when he killed Goliath, and he was small.

I disagree with almost every theological position Driscoll holds and heartily believe I would “kick his butt” in debate! This type of attitude and action from a “preacher” in America is embarrassing and compromising; it requires reprimand by the Church.

Just read the Bible, it speaks clearly to these issues. Women of the church are so ready to take over and take charge that they forget obedience. We want to teach it to our kids and “jokingly” to our husbands but do we obey God?

Moreover, before everyone becomes too enamored with that “Why I hate religion but love Jesus” viral video poet guy…. he’s a member of Mark’s church and heard Mark preach a sermon by that name.
See: http://www.elephantjournal.com/…/poet-slams-religion-but-preaches-jesus/

Mark seems to forget about the passages in the Bible where God is described as a protective eagle (Deuteronomy 32:7-12 & 18) and as a protective mother bear (Hosea 13:8). Mark, I tell you what, I wish you well if you bet between my son and his mother!

all i can say is, i couldn’t be married to mark or sit under his pastoral leadership. i listened to the entire interview and i have no respect for someone who goes into bullying mode when someone disagrees with his position.

My fiance and I attend the new Mars Hill Church in Orange County, CA. I was aware of Mark and some of the more boorish comments he’s made over the years, but was interested in what it would be like to attend such a young church. I have to say that there is no cult of personality surrounding Mark here. The focus is on the community, both inside the church and surrounding it. The congregation is young, dynamic, and filled with excitement for what God is doing in Southern California.
I would suggest listening to Mark’s sermon from 1/15 and see if it tracks with what you know about “Mark Driscoll”.

Thank you, Christie S. The bottom line – we should be obedient to God and the power of His might. We can do absolutely nothing without Him. We are wasting time dealing with this spirit of religion. The True and Living God lays it out in His Testimony – the Holy Bible. The the Holy Spirit (Spirit of Truth) reveals all that needs to be revealed. Pray for God’s wisdom and understanding of His wisdom (see Proverbs, chapter 4. In fact the entire Word of God is His Wisdom.) Ask Him to help you understand what it is in His Word that you’re trying to understand. I think it’s futile to try to get the men/women issue going here. What a waste of time. Love is the commandment. Let’s try to understand true love by letting God reveal it. I can not believe so much time was been wasted – What about talking about the mercy and grace of God – that He gave His best – His Son, Jesus – to redeem all of mankind from the curse of the law! That’s how much He loves us. Talk about whether or not you would give up your child to save a people that do not know you exist or curse you? Talk about the love He has for his greatest creation! and that He sent His Son to take our punishment, and reconciled us to Him. Talk about the fact that God is Love…..! Now that’s a conversation worth spending time on.

Be interested to know from all the vehement commentators above, how much of Driscoll’s preaching they have listened to. Not the interviews and comments on comments on comments gleaned from the internet, but how many sermons, exegetical preaching series, topical sermons, studies etc they have listened to and squared it up against the bible? Sad to say, but I would guess very little and most of the comments are obsessed with the packaging, not the content. Can Driscoll be abrasive ? Absolutely! Can he get up your nose? Sure! Will there be horror stories about the fall-out from Mars Hill ? Of course (like just about every other church you name, there will always be detractors).

But how does he line up biblically on the core doctrines, based on his sermons?
I mean, you’d be a complete moron to slate someone off before you have heard what he says – right? Prov 18v13 If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.

Dudes, I spent literal years listening to Mark Driscoll preach on podcast. Yes, he can preach very well. And yes, he enjoys being an aggressive person, with a tendency to mock or bully anyone that dares disagree with him, wherever they may be. You folks who seem to think that nobody should be disagreeing with his ways are missing the point altogether. The fact that he preaches well does not excuse his ways.

Darcy I agree with you actually! I do think he’s rude at times in fact, most of the time but you shouldn’t feel bullied and offended by what people say if your life is straight and you don’t owe them anything, right?! Ignore the man and look at Jesus! I don’t agree with his attitude, most of the time he comes off as condescending, arrogant and crass but passed all that is the beautiful Gospel and Jesus in all his grace is able to shine through all those imperfections. People just need to toughen up a little bit and focus on what really matters and that is? JESUS!
Oh, and I’m a girl btw…

I was upset by how Driscoll expressed himself here, but without getting into the doctrinal issues, I am trying to understand how he got to a place to say what appears to be unnecessarily abrasive things.

Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, and I realized that pastors like Mark spend a lot of time setting up straw men in their sermons so that they can be flogged. They don’t have to debate real individuals in their monologues, but rather the most pathetic people they can imagine — extreme examples used for the case of discussion. It’s easy to get away with this because how much the audience relates is up to them. Actual conflict occurs within the audience, not between the lecturer and audience.

It’s also like Mark plays T-ball during sermons, whereas real-life people aren’t 100% idiots just waiting to set up Mark for a home run. I see this exchange as a swing and a miss for a pro t-baller playing baseball.

So while it doesn’t seem endearing, I at least understand why he might be prone to being prematurely dismissive in a real-life conversation.

I was waiting for someone to throw that in. Of course, let’s not think about context, or anything else Paul said, let alone whether it was meant for all women for all time, or a troublesome group. Used as a prooftext, it’s a wonderful club, meant to shut anyone up who dares to disagree.

Looks pretty effective to me Darcy. What is the context (Paul’s instruction to church government and the ministries within a church). The other pesky verses about that (again in the context about leadership in the church) in 1 Tim 3v12 Let deacons be the husbands of one >>wife<>husbands of one wife<<. Now this was written by Paul who would be fully versed in the history of Israel including Deborah (Judges 4), so why didn't he use this as a precedent for guidelines for women leadership in the New Testament church. Nor in these places are there any provisions or considerations for the time & culture, nor are there any NT passages that give any relaxation of these instructions. I think the real problem with women leaders in church is the bible.

Thanks for sharing the verse. I think the trouble comes when we have to sit down and discuss how to understand the verse. While it may seem straightforward initially, it is always helpful with the study of scripture to keep a critical eye and do research to try to prevent our culturally conditioned biases from clouding our vision.

In the case of 1 Tim 2:11-15. Primarily, it must be read in context with the rest of 1 Tim. Earlier in the letter, the author exhorts the male readers to not pray out of anger. This exhortation provides a hint into the world of the church community who was receiving the letter. Specifically, in 1st Century Ephesus there was a cult that worshiped women and were severe to men. Coupled with the fact that women were being permitted to learn at all in the congregation, the author needed to address how to integrate women as full members of the community. Rather than being domineering, or usurping (the greek word for authority in the text is authientens which is most accurately translated as ‘usrurp’ or ‘domineer’) authority the women were to learn in silence and grow in spiritual maturity. The men were praying out of anger presumably because the women were trying to dominate the congregation.

Thus, 1 Tim 2:11-15 should actually be seen as a text of women’s liberation toward education and full, healthy, participation in the life of a congregation.

My question for you Ann, is why you chose this verse over others in scripture that seem more quickly liberating like where women were the first Preachers of the resurrection? Or where Deborah is given authority in Israel as a Judge? Or in Galatians where it says ‘Neither male nor female’? Why focus on 1 Tim 2 but not Levitical law that states a woman must camp outside the city when she’s on her period? Why simply type out 1 Tim 2 and not engage in the whole of scriptural study to weed through hermeneutical challenges and theological interpretations?

I would love to carry on an email conversation with you. I’d love to hear your response to my argument for proper exegesis of 1 Tim 2 and hear where you’re coming from.

Best teaching, sermons, convictions I’ve ever had in an organized church setting was from a female pastor in a small town with a church population of about 80. You don’t need a big church or a loud male pastor to preach the Good News. God sees what’s in our hearts, not what’s on the outside.

Well, I wish I had all the answers like this Mark Driscoll does. Having listened to this interview its clear that I really must give up all hopes of equality in heaven as well as earth and just get on and do some submitting to something with a testicle or two. Now I just gotta dang well find me a redneck and start obeying him, now Mark has told me what the Lord wants me to do! Damn having a vagina! Its all my mothers fault.

Spend less time bitching about other pastors and spend more time preaching the Gospel. It’s all about Jesus.

I think a good conversation and question is the one regarding off limits topics from the pulpit. John MacArthur brought this question up originally in regards to Driscoll. Any thoughts on what shouldn’t be said from the pulpit?

i believe pastor Mark is trying to get across what Paul says to Timothy in 1 Tim. 2:11-12 “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” Mark isnt saying that women are inferior, he is saying that it is a man’s responsibility to teach and pastor churches. Not that women are incapable but that men should man-up that way women will not have to. Women should be fought for and protected not the ones doing the fighting and protecting. Pastor Mark cherishes women, Ive listened to so many of his sermons, it is safe to say that he knows how wonderful they are. He is only teaching the Bible, he believes that the wrath of God that will come to those who falsely teach the Bible should be reserved for MEN, so that no woman will have to suffer that.

Ok, Women should not teach of have authority over a man (you quote). Well, what were apostles? Leaders? Elders? and were women apostles? They were – Romans 16:7 introduces us to Junia and correctly translates – she was ‘outstanding among the apostles’ (‘among’ in greek is ‘en’ – that is NEVER translated ‘to’, and is used over 2000 times in the NT, hence Driscoll’s love of the ESV – a completely political manoeuvre by a very comp. translation committee).

Next, women should not speak, remain silent etc. 1 Cor. 14:34. Great, except that in the same letter, Paul tells women to prophesy with their heads covered – sounds like talking to me!

Wives submit to your husbands…. while conveniently ignoring; ‘submit yourselves to one another’, Ephesians 5:21 (as in, all Christians need to submit to each other). So, husbands must submit to their wives and pastors must submit to their congregation.

Once you say one verse trumps another, you aren’t reading the Bible, you are playing verse games.

This is why the body of Christ in North America is so immature, we walk around quoting verses to each other. Quote whole thoughts of Paul so we can dissect the validity of your reasoning.

I just listened to the whole interview and I found both sides humble and respectful. There were a few things said that probably were not necessary to say. This blog tends to sensationalize the interview and takes the most controversial things that Pastor Driscoll said and posts them. The interview did not come across the way the blog makes it appear. I hate to see a Godly evengelical leader maligned.

Please listen to the interview. I just did. The blogger over-sensationalizes both sides. The actual interview is considerably more respectful and truthful that this post represents. Listen to the words, and not preconceptions of those speaking them. And there are Biblical grounds and Godly designs for male leadership in the church. That is simply true.

Mars Hill Church and Driscoll have taken my two beautiful and educated daughters (along with many other young ladies) and convinced them that to get to Heaven they must marry, submit, and become baby makers…That is only the tip of the iceberg in the brainwashing…Totally Barbaric. I have been shunned and emotional abused while my girls are held “hostage” being told this is what Jesus wants. Mars Hill: Have babies and plant churches…my 22 year old daughter is about to give birth and I can’t get near her…Her fellow young female Mars Hill members are on their second and third babies…Trust me when I say it is a slow and methodical grooming that before I realized what had happened it was too late! It is cult…calling it self a church. They have to sign contracts for Heaven’s sake!!! Driscoll is a bully, no doubt. Oh, and I have attended Mars Hill over 25 times at many of the campuses. It is very seductive and hip! Wolf in sheep’s clothing!
Just like Driscoll. Sucks them right in….

“I think women hear the line that if they are submissive. God will reward them by turning their husbands into the attentive, responsible men of their dreams. They take that in faster than you can imagine. It’s like a gift with purchase deal-hand over your freedom and I’ll give you prince charming. They even tell fairy tale stories about other women in the church who have experienced it to prove it is true. Men get a whole different ‘schooling’ that is equally destructive. They are encouraged to enter this absurdly competitive almost adolescent world. (Taken from a comment on FB page “Mark Driscoll is an Asshole”)

Why is the year 2012 is this even a conversation? Driscoll, you are a Neanderthal nit-wit! Nuff said! Who died a made you God? God did not die. You are extrapolating and putting words in God’s mouth. i seem to recall Jesus instructing us not to do that.

Extraordinary! You really struck gold on this one. All these comments should keep you busy for a while. Good Luck!

Within my community, Driscoll is considered to be “the Man”. I don’t see and/ or get it. I have never been a fan of Driscoll, even before I knew what he represented or looked like, due to those of whom I knew that raved on and on about this fellow. It has been evident that these people are people who are willing to bypass all compassion and look past the heart of the matter to be “theologically correct”. I must admit that this has me a bit bewildered, for what greater heresy and/or blasphemy is there then to abandon compassion, grace and love (All of which I have yet to have seen conveyed through this man.) for what one believes is “right” theology? It was once stated that without love all things are but shit and the majority of what I have heard and witnessed of Mark’s seems to (sniff sniff) wreak of it.

Mark strikes me as a fellow who relishes in attention, be it good or bad. I wonder if be at all wise to even be contributing to his, what seems to be, already big head(Please, I mean no offence to you, the writer of this post or anyone who has thus far commented, by this question. Rather, I myself am seriously mulling this one over and have only done so out loud.)?

Trevor,
Driscoll presents very well. It’s one of the reasons for his success. This does not diminish the fact that he has some very serious issues and is dragging down a generation of young, impressionable men into a very bad place.

Driscoll appeals to Driscoll reflections. Young men looking for identity in a pseudo macho, neo Calvinists. Scripture directs us to reflect Christ who is the Driscoll antitypical. Humble, holy and commissioning women to do His work. “Your sons AND DAUGHTERS will prophesy.”

In my experience, allegedly straight men who obsess about homosexuality, sex, and gender to the point where it becomes the defining point of their ministry – aren’t. My “gaydar” is going off Mr. Driscoll.

Did you really just turn that whole discussion into questioning if mark driscoll is a homosexual? Haha thats low man, ive never met the guy but its pretty apparent that he is a godly heterosexual man who loves his wife and kids and loves his church and cares about raising up a generation of young men who will do the same for Christ, their wives, families, and churches. Wow.

[…] Skip to contentHome← A reader asks…Mark Driscoll Posted on January 18, 2012 by Mark SheaThink of him as the Protestant Michael Voris. Though to Voris’ credit, he never said, as Driscoll did, that he couldn’t worship a God […]

[…] was better — the one Driscoll runs or the one run by Brierley’s wife.Chris Massey has the transcript and the commentary:Much of the interview revolved around Driscoll’s views on women and their role in marriage and […]

I do not believe in women pastors. But I think they are less dangerous to the body of Christ than these “rock star” pastors building their own kingdoms rather than Christ’s. I would hope that Driscoll’s elders, should they have any actual voice are taking him through a study of Gal 5:13-25 and what it “looks like” to walk in the Spirit of God

My husband and I are missionary evangelists and have lived in Haiti since 1975. Two of our four children and one of our nine grandchildren were born there. We host Haiti’s most popular TV show that features the beauty of Haiti with a gospel message. Currently we are aired in 13 US Haitian markets and over 100 TV stations in Haiti. We do not pay for airtime as our content is in such demand. Over 2 million Haitians, all age groups and economic strata, view our show http://www.youtube.com/telelouange

We came in contact with Mark Driscoll shortly after the quake and he gave for the one year anniversary which we organized and hosted. 100K Haitians answered our call to worship in front of the ruined Palais Nationale. Driscoll arrived in a private plane, I picked him up and he wanted to leave when the crowd was peeking. I sent a Haitian driver to take him back to the airport as I was not leaving the outpouring of God’s Spirit.

Not long after that Driscoll flew us to Orlando they wanted us to head up their mission work in Haiti since they had no experienced missionaries and we are successful soulwinners. Right before we were “signed on” to their 400 supporting churches, something we really could use. I said, “Wait I preach. I planted an English worship service in my living room for missionaries and business people.” That brought a icy response from Grudem, Mark’s right hand man, and it was the last we heard from them.

My point is that success has nothing to do with Mark’s heretical complimentarianism. Yes, heretical. I heard Driscoll say at the Orlando event that “cessationism is heretical”. If he can say that what is the legalism that seeks to bind a woman from answering Christ’s call on her life to preach repentance and the remission of sins to men and women? In the above referenced interview Mark claims men and women do not go far enough, well let me go as far as the scripture commands me, there is no mediator between me and Christ. I hear His voice asking me “Who can we send?” and I answer “Send me!” and I will and have faithfully, boldly and fearlessly proclaim His word.

That’s what I meant. I think there are some on this (now rather long) list who seem to imply that anyone who believes in women’s ministry is automatically a theological liberal. I think your story shoots that one down!

Not only am I a conservative I am a five point Calvinist. Reformed charismatic egalitarian as far from a liberal theology as you can get! Thank you for all the kind words. Driscoll’s rejection was a painful reminder that Christ is our source. Our 2011 was summed up in these words:

In 2011 we received the left foot of fellowship from a major denomination, a minor one and some novice missionaries. On the other hand 100,000 Haitians answered our call to worship in Haiti’s largest ever evangelistic crusdae and our Creole Christian TV show aired on 113 stations!

This is such a circular argument! A church that attracts all kinds of people apart from ‘macho men’ is in the wrong? So are you saying that a church that puts off gay men is in the wrong? Or women in their 50s? Or lefty liberals? Or black people?

No. What you are saying is that ‘macho men’ are more important than anyone else. The church should change to suit them, and this is godly. Changing to suit anyone else is heresy. Can you not see how hypocritical that is?

I would highly recommend that people follow this link to Ben Irwin’s blog. He has some really good thoughts on the interview and was able to explore a lot of the areas I didn’t have space for. Well worth the read.

I’ve been Unbelievable (the Premier Christian Radio programme which Brierley usually presents) as their tame atheist (though Brierley wasn’t the host that day), and listened to other programmes he’s presented. I think he’s generally pretty fair to his interviewees. I’d do other programmes if it weren’t for the fact that they usually record during the working week now and I’m not a professional atheist.

As I no longer need to cheer-lead for the Reformed team (turns out I was unregenerate), I can safely say this Driscoll character sounds like an arse. His defenders are using the Politician’s Syllogism in the form “The gospel is offensive, Driscoll’s preaching is offensive, therefore Driscoll is preaching the gospel”. I think I’d agree with the “doth protest too much” crowd:billysumday got his number when he discussed Driscoll on Metafilter.

I would like to say something regarding some of the comments I’ve seen in response to this post. I’ll admit that I haven’t read them all, I got very disheartened.

If you consider yourself a Christian I think you need to consider your words regarding your brother in Christ, Mark Driscoll. While you might disagree with him, and that is fine, please consider how you are speaking about a fellow Christian.

Yes he might have been harsh, but the Lord doesn’t say “treat others as they treat you” but “treat others as you want to be treated”. And one of the fruit of the Spirit is kindness.

“They will know we are Christians by our LOVE by our LOVE, yes they will know we are Christians by our LOVE…..”

As much as I want to avoid getting in to “it” over the WWW (world wide web, haha, not just the American part), I cannot help it but note this fact.

A man who claims to be apparently “THE” follower of Christ–the litmus test for all other believers, is–for all intensive purposes, lacking in the one area Christ said they would know us as His followers by.

God is Love.
Which means anything that comes from Love cannot be the opposite of it–even if it seems so.
For those that affirm that God has hated, if Love hates, can hate really be the opposite of Love? Secondly, it was past tense, Jacob have I hated, not hate.

Love is something that is difficult to pin down, but here’s what we do know, Jesus is the image of the invisible God.

John calls him the Word–logos. That is, the logic, reason, meaning, plot–the heart of the story. So Jesus is the logic, and reason, and meaning, and plot of….LOVE!

Explain it away however you want, I am not so much angered at Driscoll–Lord knows I wish to be, I long to see someone put that man right in his place, but angered by his preaching of a gospel ripe with Love, while all the while lacking that very characteristic unless it suits him.

He is part of a group that appeals to American culture, and in that, he’s succeeding. When you pander to what America wants, you see big numbers. It’s not a matter of speaking the full truth, but a matter of giving the people what they want, even if it’s behind the veil of “we don’t pander to the people, we speak truth.”

If Mark was trying to give people what they wanted he would not be so criticized. He is loved and followed by people sick and tired of watered down BS that is not changing lives or confronting the immorality of our culture and Christians.

And as far as love goes…. Sometimes Love is saying what is hard and what makes people angry but will make them right with God.

[…] than others? January 18, 2012 by Bo Sanders Leave a Comment In recent weeks both Tim Tebow and Marc Driscoll have been hot button topics of conversation in my circles. The whole thing peaked this week when […]

This snippet certainly isnt too flattering for mark i havent heard the full interview but heres what i have to say in his defense. ive been listening to and reading his material for about a yr and a half now and for me personally it has heloed me grow more passionate about jesus more passionate about studying the bible more passionate about the gospel. my wife even wrote to mark thanking him because i h ave become a more loving husband and father through christs work through his ministry

Maybe we can l inspire me to be more like christ love his word or be a better husband leader orearn a little about how we do or dont want to represent christ from this but hope those of you who are followers of jesus who want to write his ministry off are bearing similar fruit in your own lives because its by our fruit we will be known. why someone thinks its godly or christ like to blog critically about the body of christ is beyond me. i hope u r doing something fruitful with the rest of your time. because nothing here makes me love jesus the word his church my wife or my neighbour more.

[…] Jim Henderson’s post “Driscoll Bullies the Brits” Jason Clark’s post “Mark Driscoll takes aim at the ‘cowards’ in the British church #dminlgp” Michael Frost’s post here All of the above sparked from this article […]

Everyone needs to calm down and take a deep breath. Nobody is right all the time, and everyone has bad days. Mark was obviously over-emphasizing his position to make a contrast, he just took it too far and yes, sinned.

I listen to Mark Driscoll avidly and just like with every preacher, we all need to learn to eat the meat and spit out the bones, discernment is one of the gifts of the Spirit that we desperately need to grow in. If any one of us spoke in public as much, and had the same kind of pressure that Mark Driscoll has from critics, we ALL would say at least as much that is wrong as he has. So cut him some slack and don’t let the occasional bad interview write a guy off.

If you have not listened to a good 10 sermons of his, and not with a “try-to-find-something-to-slam-him-about-on-the-blogoshere” spirit but a teachable spirit, then I don’t think you have the right to gossip (which is what most of this is). If you do not have a teachable spirit then your heart is not right before God, so you’re in the same boat that Mark was during this interview.

I think I’d put it another way: most of us acknowledge that we might have got it wrong. N T Wright – who is not the most humble theologian who ever lived – says it like this: ‘Maybe I’ve got 10% of what I believe completely wrong [only 10% Tom, you’re doing well!], the problem is I don’t know which 10%.’

If you go into debate with that kind of attitude, you won’t sound like Mr Driscoll did in that interview.

Serve the Lord w humility of mind. If a man thinketh himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.

Driscoll thinks he’s God’s prophet and only God’s communication w an individual can ordain that position. He wants to and thinks he is something, a prophet, when he is a pastor and not a good one at that.

I know I am nothing, a sinner saved by grace and by His grace I walk in His rightousness humbly and holy before Him. It doesn’t get any better than that I am hid in Christ and He works through me to give His name glory.

I’m not sure how honest you are. I can tell you are sensitive to the Spirit but are you suggesting that you have not “bowed the knee to Baal”? Have you no sin? By definition, sin is missing the mark. Are you now perfected? If not, then your sin is exalting yourself above God is it not? Sin is misplaced worship isn’t it? I found this last comment unbecoming to you, trite, and judgemental with a hint of self-righteousness.

It is obvious that you have been deeply offended by what Mark believes about women in a teaching role, and how that affected you while in Haiti. Just so you know, I have no problem with women teaching men, so I do not align myself with Mark in that way. I would suggest that sin pollutes everything we do, our motivations, even our service to God. God is able to overlook our sins in order to train us to become greater disciples of Himself. This is the grace He gives each of us, and aren’t you glad for it? I have received grace through Mark’s teaching, and while I can’t whole-heartedly agree with everything he says, I can’t even agree with everything I say, do you know what I mean? Mark is not Jesus, I am not Jesus, we both mess up and so the best thing to do is point to Jesus and walk with him the best we can so people have a foggy clue what He’s like. In my experience, Mark has always pointed to Jesus because it is obvious that he is not Him. He even says that often in his not-so-offensive sermons.

I really take serious issue with Driscoll and his subversion of the gospel message. Instead of teaching Christ, he is teaching distractions about machismo, while at the same time oppressing women who are truly called by God.

Check out my post on the subject, and let me know what you think! Thanks!

[…] posted about Mark Driscoll and an awkward quote that was floating around the interwebs. A great blog post that I ran across highlights some major points of an interview that Driscoll did in England. I […]

Not sure that Driscoll can say, “Follow Christ, as I follow Christ”. I personally believe that scripture affirms women in leadership, but I still respect others who hold a different viewpoint. I don’t agree with John Piper on a number of areas, but I have so much respect for him and I will still read his books, listen to his sermons etc. Driscoll on the other hand has lost all credibility with me.
“God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble”. Tread carefully Driscoll.

[…] listen to the entire unedited interview here. The sections that I took exception to are printed here (while dealing only with this section, I find it to be an accurate depiction of the tone and spirit […]

[…] soon. Second, he was recently interviewed by a British Christian and, if the summation on this blog is to be believed (I have yet to listen to the entirely of the audio), he said some pretty mean and […]

Above I saw this a mention of how harsh Jesus was and how he called out Pharisee’s and how Mark Driscol is just doing what Jesus did.

I take issue with that in the fact that when I see Jesus attack the Pharisee’s I see him attack them on the basis of their attitude that they are better than everyone and know more about the Bible than anyone. Socially they ruled the people and oppressed the poor,took advantage of the less fortunate and oppressed those on the outside. They thought they had the right view of God and Jesus said “ahhhh no you don’t” you have the exact opposite view of the Father.

In a very significant way Mark Driscoll looks to me like the Pharisee. He oppresses women, gays and anyone who doesn’t think like him. Does that seem like what Christ would do?

[…] A summary of blogged responses to that "I hate religion but love Jesus" video that's been doing the rounds. I made a comment at the bottom. Also good for the comment thread on Atheismo, the diety for atheists.(tags: relationship with god video atheism religion)Driscoll & Brierley on Women in Leadership « Cognitive Discopants […]

Excellent summary. Just listened to the podcast and was steamed at Driscoll at the end. I actually thought he clarified his own positions quite well earlier in the interview, and then his bitterness suddenly showed through as he attempted to manipulate the conversation with a poorly-executed “appeal to consequences” fallacy.

Thank you God for men like Driscoll. Too much of the church is not in touch with who God really is or whats really going on in the front lines of this war against humanity. Get in the Word guys!! Not just the gospel! Get to know your Father! Our culture is making him be who they want so they dont get their feelings hurt or hurt others. We are at war with a real enemy. Men are leaving their wives and families at an all out rampant number. Men are losing their masculinity and confused of their gender. Pornography is destroying healthy mindsets about sex and relationships. Driscoll is harsh but when you are fighting at the front lines you have to be sharp and cutting. If people get offended by him then they better make sure its him and not God’s Word. He has way more backing him up from scripture than his critics! I am a woman and I would much rather my boys be raised in a church like Mars Hill then a water down feel good accept everything Jesus loves you church! When Paul forbid women to teach it was not because they were not capable if you understood authority and how important it is for unity you would know this. Women are gifted and called to do many things in the church but it is not Biblical for them to LEAD a church. Man is the head of a woman and Jesus is the head of man. Women were meant to be covered due to being made from the internal vulnerable parts of a man… we are the weaker sex, get over it! Mark loves women. This culture is trippin! He rocked this interview.

ps. in the past many Men have blown it with lording it over women and being too harsh as well women have been super dishonoring and disrespectful to men. Mark has gone too far sometimes and he admits that. He is in process as well but he is right on at confronting things sharply!

Dude. YES! The war from satan against humanity! Satan is hugely strategic and He’s been super productive in displacing men.
Driscoll and many Christians see this. Driscoll is not fighting people but the mindsets they have sucumbed to. If you don’t think we are in a war, you might want to read your Bible. IMm just sayin 🙂

Becca: “Too much of the church is not in touch with who God really is or whats ”

And you think Driscoll is in touch with who God really is or what He really wants?

When I hear Driscoll, all I can think is, “Has this man ever actually read the words of Jesus Christ in red in the gospels?” Because Driscoll is a far cry from ANYTHING that Jesus represents. In too many ways he is the opposite of what Jesus taught.

I agree, much of the church is clueless concerning who God is and what He wants.But I put Driscoll squarely in the the catagory of also being clueless.

Driscoll and the world are obsessed with authority when Jesus taught the opposite, the exact opposite concerning authority that Driscoll teaches.
Driscoll and much of the church use the words of Paul, taken out of context, to cancel out, bury, and otherwise annihilate the very things that Jesus was trying to get across.
More of the Church need to find out who Jesus is, in His own words, in the Gospels, without filtering it through the words of Paul who would be displease with what people have done with his epistles.

[…] was going to write on Mark Driscoll's recent tirade against British journalist/radio show host Justin Brierley (a host who I very much like). I didn't because I couldn't bring myself to listen to the whole […]

Driscoll sounds like a coward in bully clothing… the same ones I met as a teenager. He has a long history of this… People who are secure in themselves do not talk this way.

That he can claim courage by talking about his pet doctrines while standing on countless theologians who have said the same thing in far more books than he could read… this is not courage. He’s not forging a way forward. He’s shielded himself with repackaged old ideas that are popular already along certain American denominational lines… and if you don’t agree with him you are insulted. Again, he has a long history of this.

That he seems to assume that young theologian celebrities are important is a horrible fallacy. He *tries* to make himself the standard rather than Scripture. They are called “elders” in Scripture for a reason. And just because Brierly cannot think of one doesn’t mean they do not exist. Michael Ramsden is popular in the UK and he’s Driscoll’s age.

Even more, I wouldn’t include Driscoll in a list of American theologians either… so Driscoll isn’t even the standard in this discussion. He’s a parrot of his pet theologians; he’s not a theologian himself. An example of young theologians is Kevin VanHoozer–who is considered a young theologian among theologians–and he was born in 1957… and James K. A. Smith is younger than Driscoll and is a very accomplished theologian for his age. If Driscoll would give up writing for the popular audience and writing real theology, he wouldn’t sell books or be popular. Theologians are usually not popular, but do quiet work. The church depends deeply on unpopular theologians.

And that a young Christian celebrity has popular influence and speaks up courageously for what he believes doesn’t mean the young Christian celebrity is right. Driscoll despises Rob Bell, for example, though Rob Bell does more courageous work answering today’s questions with honesty (though he may not always be right) than by forcing today’s questions into yesterday’s answers, as Driscoll often does.

Driscoll is hung up on gender issues because he doesn’t understand it. He cloaks himself with the false persona of a fallen masculinity for self-protection. That’s fine, if he chooses to live that way… I know many men who do the same and hope you will think them strong.

[…] was nowhere near as incendiary as the interview released from last weekend — I’m glad Chris handled that one and not me! It was, however, a rather interesting contribution to the “Mind, Body, and Soul […]

This guy should not be leading anyone. He’s full of judgement, egotism, and misleading ideas. It’s sad so many cling to his teachings. Those who seek the Truth will surely find it, and not in the words or thoughts of such a dishonorable man.

The biggest problem I see is that Pastor Driscoll has gotten what is considered ‘meek’ mixed up with what is considered ‘weak’… he needs to step away from the pulpit and sit back in the pews and learn the difference before being allowed to preach again.

If you find yourself increasingly experiencing cognitive dissonance while living among the self-proclaimed people of God, there are two ways to reduce it: 1) draw near to a different group of people, one which sees the same negatives in the self-proclaimed people of God that you do, or 2) draw near to God, who shows you how to love all people whether they proclaim themselves to be the people of God or not.

I doubt MD has much time for The Enneagram, but here’s the basic definition of a Type 8:

Eights are self-confident, strong, and assertive. Protective, resourceful, straight-talking, and decisive, but can also be ego-centric and domineering. Eights feel they must control their environment, especially people, sometimes becoming confrontational and intimidating. Eights typically have problems with their tempers and with allowing themselves to be vulnerable. At their best: self- mastering, they use their strength to improve others’ lives, becoming heroic, magnanimous, and inspiring.

I’ve just done it. I’m a 5. My sub-type is called ‘the iconoclast,’ which probably explains why I’m cynical about both MD AND the enneagram…

BUT… type 8 is the one I’m supposed to become like when I’m healthy, while mine is the one 8’s move towards when they’re unhealthy. Might explain why the MDs of the world are so afraid of nerdy/intellectual guys like me.

The blog ends with, “you can’t take four minutes of conversation out of context.” But…taking 4 minutes of a 60 minute conversation out of context does affect the perception. After listening to the interview in its entirety, I have to say it dramatically changed my opinion. Very different feeling than after reading this blog.

I don’t totally agree with his strong approach and wording at times in the interview, especially his stance on women in leadership creating less masculine men but I do believe in being led by example.

If I want to be a better wife and mother, I sure wouldn’t turn to Driscoll as my example– b/c he’s a man. His point is that men need leadership and strong examples and having that in the church is imperative–I 100% agree. Don’t necessarily think though that women in church leadership, that also incorporates men, is going to cause them to be “feminine.” What so women are more masculine b/c we have men in leadership? That argument doesn’t hold water.

I don’t agree with him on that point, but respect him for standing up for what he believes and frankly liked a lot of the other things he had to stay–he is bold and I respect that. Whether or not I believe it myself! His standpoint made me think and question what I feel and believe, this can never be a bad thing.

I guess the only problem is that we are called to be bold yet humble – Christ modelled this perfectly. People can be bold but just plain unedifying and that causes untold damage as we proclaim the good news of the Gospel.

Dave-I agree! Jesus showed truth with a heck of a lot of grace. Excellent point. Truth and Grace Paradox by Randy Alcorn is an amazing book on this. However, in the interview if you listen to the whole thing, Driscoll does show humility and says that he has been wrong many times and is far from perfect.

I didn’t see it as unedifying. Edify means to improve intellect. It definitely got all of us thinking. I don’t feel this blog truly depicts what is conveyed in that interview and the spirit behind their conversation. The last 4 minutes were also not at all in the same spirit as the rest of the talk. Both sides were making points about each other’s beliefs–one in veiled questioning and one outright–the same thing was happening on both sides but expressed differently in my opinion.

Thankyou for your honesty – I believe edification to be more wholistic ie intellectual, spiritual and moral “building up”.In a Christian context our role as foot soldiers for Jesus is to glorify God and edify others. My issue with some of Mark Driscoll’s approach is that it makes this “building up” harder to achieve.
That said I have enjoyed some of his teaching in the past and will probably do so again. Thanks for the book name – I’ll check it out.
Blessings

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

All the law and all the prophets hang on these two commandments: love. Paul puts it another way:

1 Corinthians 13:

1 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.

So: Christ says all the law and prophets hang on our ability to act in love. Paul tells us that anything we accomplish is rendered empty and meaningless if we operate without love.

In these two passages — particularly in Matthew 22 — we’re told that love is the litmus test.

Hi all, I am from South Africa and there are probably a few woman just on my block that would knock Driscoll’s teeth out!

What about June, Pricsilla, Chloe, the elect lady (2John), these were woman that took leadership roles in an absolutely male dominated culture, where woman could not even be taught about the scriptures. Marc is going backwards from the cross back into the law to enforce this demonic doctrine. Jesus or Paul never seemed to have a problem with this. Most of the first church leaders would obviously be men because of the extreme culture they came out of, so you would expect many more woman leaders now. I have never read that the five fold ministry is exclusively for men? No male or female in Christ Jesus!

About the sex obsession, once again you have to spit on the cross and go backwards into focusing on what is below instead of those things that are above. If you want to promote accountability groups to check on each others sexual sins, then guess what you will be thinking about all day? and yes you will never get free from it!

Pastors are there to teach people and let them know who they are in Christ, then they will understand what true grace really is and it is this truth and this truth alone that will make people to say no to unrighteousness, not focusing on sin all day long!!

The church needs to let go of these old school, weak doctrines of devils and move into what Jesus actually died for us to have, and yes, sorry Marc, it is the meek that will inherit the earth!

Jason the elect lady in 2 John is a reference to the church. I would guess that Mark is not opposed to women holding all positions, including deacons, but specific positions such as pastors which is commonly equated to the position of elder.

Jon, it is very possible that church tradition that went through the dark ages, where men argued as to whether or not women even had souls, that this church tradtion decided the the elect lady in 2 John HAD to be a church because it COULDN’T be and actual lady. There is NO PROOF other than the traditions of men that the elect lady had to be a church. No proof at all. Just the claims of men who can’t accept female leaders.

Women in ministry is not a confused issue in the bible. Miriam led Israel with her two brother, Huldah’s godly counsel was sought out by King Josiah, Deborah judged Israel, Anna was a prophet who saw the Christ child. Your sons AND your DAUGHTERS will prophesy. First apostles, second prophets, then evangelists, pastors and teachers. It is a given and biblical precedent there were and are women prophets in leadership b/c “second prophets.”

The question is not what MD allows the question is who does God ordain! And He doesn’t need MD’s approval on any of His decisions. I am a woman preacher, commissioned by Christ, obedient to live in a third world county for 35 years! (I will be buried there.) And by the way over 2,000,000,000 hear me minister every day. I have plundered Hell and populated Heaven before MD finished kindergarten. And I will continue to do so w/o his permission or approval.

Brad, you and a few other commenters have frequently suggested that the problems with the things Driscoll has said will just disappear if we listen to more of what he says (both in the Brierley interview and in Driscoll’s preaching generally). The fact that Driscoll wasn’t being obnoxious during the entire interview or managed to preach a sermon that wasn’t offensive does not excuse the offensive things he has said. Would you encourage people to eat a moldy loaf of bread just because 90% of it was still good?
If you’re looking for “proof” that Driscoll’s macho, oversexualized approach to church leadership leads to bullying, look no further than the recent story of Andrew, as told on Jesusneedsnewpr: Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

Well I’ve been listening to him for about 3 years, and probably clocked up about 150hrs or his sermon & training. Does Driscoll have some bristles – Oh yeah! Does he overstep his mark – absolutely. I’ll even state he got a bit diva-ish in his blog post about the interview and overacted. But in the interview, I would not characterise Driscoll as being obnoxious or over-macho, but being bold enough to hit the issues head-on, and (sadly) many in the UK (and I live in the UK) are grade-A wimps, both in the church & in normal lives when it comes to anything difficult. Driscoll just exposed that. Having said that, it was refreshing to see Brierly finally pushed to show his theological hand and not just rest on his role as `impartial mediator`.
Oh, and thanks for these links, let me look & I’ll get back to you.
Cheers/ Brad M
PS: The bread analogy, dont think works. As with all things under the banner of preaching the gospel, I eat the meat and spit out the bones… more like chicken wings (-:

Brad, how do you know which is meat and which is bones? I was given this analogy when I was being spiritually abused and I didn’t have the tools to know what to spit out. I’ve a hunch most people who remain under MD don’t either else his influence would dwindle.

I don’t even know what a grade-A wimp means when in context with Driscoll. Driscoll has a secular view of masculinity that has been the dominate view in world history. Driscoll thinks people who don’t like violent sports are wimps. Artistic singers are wimps. Whoever doesn’t dress like a gang member (see picture at top) are wimps. It’s a nebulous concept here. I see Driscoll as a wimp in many ways because he speaks from the inside and tows the party line. Where’s the courage in that? To speak up about a literal Hell or Forensic Justification isn’t very courageous… that’s been been around for centuries. Nothing controversial when you are speaking from within. C. S. Lewis, however, was not a wimp because he was surrounded from without. But Lewis would be a wimp in Driscoll’s paradigm because Lewis probably had soft hands. So the whole “strong men” vs. “wimps” thing is unclear in this kind of conversation and in the above interview. It’s a false criteria.

But maybe you’ve already adopted his view of masculinity and so cannot see the “bones”…?

My thought is that if we don’t like the way he preaches, then we don’t have to listen. 15,000 other people are finding value in what he says and lives have been changed so who are we to judge?! I don’t think they would keep attending a church that they felt “bullied” at.

Yes, the way he speaks about women in leadership isn’t my cup of tea, and feels harsh. But Mark Driscoll is not Christ and neither are we…What’s that verse, “he who is without sin cast the first stone.” I will answer to God for my response and actions, and Driscoll will do the same for his. I am not his judge. Whether we believe in all his beliefs and doctrines, he still is a Christ follower. I think we all should be very careful in our judgment of this man.

Also, in that interview BOTH were making points–Breirley in veiled questions, Driscoll in outspoken words.

Brad, why would that be a morbid curiosity? I haven’t heard his last sermon but does anyone need to? I’ve been paying attention to evangelical culture of many years and the louder voices in the emerging generation. The unkindness and irrational poking at Brierly is TYPICAL Driscoll. It’s his character. His MO. I’ve been watching it for years and know people who have attended his church and departed over it. And even if he were to preach that we should have a different kind of attitude, that doesn’t mean anything. I know liars who tell me lying is wrong. It may mean they don’t like lying, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t liars.

People who bully are usually cowards. There’s a whole movement in American education about bullies and how to act toward bullies. Bullies are usually insecure and put on a front of courage and talk a lot about being courageous and strong and the like. We can pity them, but we shouldn’t follow them, no matter if they are in a church or a school yard.

What baffles me is how long Christians will defend their bad leaders because they feel inspired or overpowered by them. We have a long history of this.

Couple of things:
1) About my `spitting out the bones`, the plumb-line for all is the bible. http://youtu.be/sRS9t6zuIaI . No-one, incl Mark D is insitiing to swallow all of his teaching,but go to the bible. I’d expect that same regime of discernment in all Christians. Paul even said if he goes off the gospel rails, ignore him Gal 1v8
2) I haven’t heard his last sermon but does anyone need to? – Like DUH, Yes. Only a fool would render a staunch opinion about someone without hearing him (Prov18v13)
3) What baffles me is how long Christians will defend their bad leaders because they feel inspired or overpowered by them. We have a long history of this.
>> My concern: What baffles me is how long Christians will deride their good leaders because they feel challenged by them. We ALSO have a long history of this.

cognitivediscopants, P.S. I should have added, however, that until we teach ourselves, and then others, how to have Jesus as Teacher, we have not reached the goal. In other words, instead of being disciples of Driscoll or Wright, we ought to be disciples of Jesus Christ. This is not facile talk, nor is it a glib sound-bite or bumper sticker. This is one of the simplest, most profound, and most-widely overlooked principles in the promulgation of Christianity today.

Mike, in a sense I agree. No person should blindly follow any teacher. But I am also of the view that the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture is a demonstrably false doctrine. Without learned guides, we will likely misinterpret a 2-3000 year old text. Exhibit A: The Left Behind series.

2. Given your view of the perspicuity of Scripture, do you condemn Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation for ignoring the learned guides who told them not to take scriptural interpretation into their own hands?

3. If a member of Driscoll’s church should happen by your blog and read your advice, should he drop out of Driscoll’s church and read Wright books – or are you saying he should look for a church that teaches what Wright teaches?

4. To state the previous question in more generalized terms, how does a person decide which church to attend or which teacher to follow if, as you say, the Scripture is not perspicuous? That is, what rule or authority is to guide his decision?

Mike (you can call me Chris, by the way),
1. I would be more comfortable with the idea of being a student of Scripture and a disciple of Jesus.
2. I need to clarify my disagreement with perspicuity. I am fully on board with the idea that the ability to interpret the Bible is not the special purview of church authorities, Catholic or otherwise. So I would actually applaud Luther for taking Scripture into his own hands, as you put it. Where I disagree with perspicuity is the idea that the ordinary reader 2000 years removed from the culture and context (not to mention language) of the text can expect easily to discern its meaning. Sometimes the meaning will be self-evident, but often it will not.
3. I would recommend that Mars Hill members find a new church. Reading books is great, but I would recommend finding a fellowship as well. And I wouldn’t want to be understood as saying that N.T. Wright has the definitive take on Christianity. There are points at which I disagree with him too.
4. What option have we but to rely on our own reason informed by careful historical-critical study of the Bible?

Thanks for your answers. They are rational, but provoke in me yet more thoughts and questions. I won’t pursue them, but will just close by saying that your answers, reasonable as they are, leave me concerned, as I said I was in my initial comment, that being a disciple of Jesus is only an idea to which we pay lip service – the real focus being what church we attend and what human teachers we heed.

[…] remind us, in the past year Mark has mocked “effeminate-looking male pastors” and denied women’s role in church leadership. The 2nd of those could be a valid stance for a Church to take. A couple of weeks ago, Mark’s […]

[…] “Cognitive Discopants” documented and commented on the major points of the Driscoll’s “Unbelievable” interview that has caused much of the uproar. The post is called “Driscoll & Brierley on Women in Leadership.” […]

[…] remind us, in a past year Driscoll has mocked “effeminate-looking masculine pastors” and denied women’s purpose in church leadership. The second of those could be a current position for a Church to take. A integrate of weeks ago, […]

[…] listen to the entire unedited interview here. The sections that I took exception to are printed here (while dealing only with this section, I find it to be an accurate depiction of the tone and spirit […]

So after three years of theology classes and a bachelor’s degree in religion I am not sure with whom I am most astonished by on the remarks MD, this commentary, or the reply’s to this post. Yes I am for women in leadership in the church. I do not believe that God calls people to do things in the Body of Christ based on their gender. This is just one of countless examples why some people are turned away from Christianity. We are suppose to offer hope. healing, and reconciliation. Instead look at the example of this pastor and some of the remarks to this post. As Christians we must remember the final command that Jesus left for us to go into all the world and make disciples. People interpret theology and apply it to their own doctrine to prove what they believe. A person must read the whole scripture in context and not just one or two verses and apply it to their own agenda. Arguing over doctrine issues will always just be ugly and messy. I would much rather use my time to reach the people who are hurting and offer hope to them wouldn’t you.

Yes our commanded focus is on “repentance and the remission of sins” but there is place for thoughtful argument. How else would we be compelled to examine ourselves whether we be in the faith or see whether these things be true? And as defenders of the faith we must be prepared to give an answer. Blessings, my sister!

[…] Christianity.” Driscoll, of course, created his latest storm of controversy in an interview with British radio host Justin Brierley a few weeks back, when he said, among other things, that there were no good Bible teachers in the […]

Firstly, on the gender issue, it seems to me that there’s a lot of scholars on each side of the women-in-leadership debate. Both sides aspire to be Biblical. So it seem a little harsh to characterise the side you aren’t on as chauvanist or feminist depending on your persuasion. MD seems to love his wife, serve the women in his church, and repeatedly challenges men to be warn, tender husbands. Hardly an ogre.

Secondly, yes MD is a natural at winding people up. He knows it. He uses it to get people to think. By our culture’s standards, he goes far to far. He’s admitted he needs to grow in this. Good on him. However, perhaps we can learn from this – as Brits are we not often too timid or polite to challenge one another (healthily) as Jesus both did and commanded? Are we secure enough to disagree without a slanging match or spontaneous tears?

Thirdly, it seems odd to suggest that MD is stupid. He is remarkably well read, in a range of areas, and this comes out in his preaching. He has hundreds of sermons on his church’s website, of which maybe a dozen are very controversial. The rest are largely about how great Jesus is. He planted a church from scratch which has seen many come to faith, and done far more work with abuse victims, drug abusers, etc etc than most on this forum will ever do.

Fourthly, what’s with all the ‘I/someone I know would kick his ass in debate’ nonsense? Hmmm, well even if that was true, so what? Is that what this is about, ‘winning’? I don’t understand why Christians come on blogs like this to complain to other Christians they mostly don’t know about the words of someone they haven’t met. Would Jesus spend his time on this?

[…] a perspective still reigns in many parts of the United States to this day (as Mark Driscoll’s recent phone interview with Justin Brierley so clearly indicates). As I have challenge other assumptions made in the […]

[…] Mark Driscoll have recently said some controversial things about masculinity in the church. In an interview with Justin Briary, Driscoll associates the doctrines of hell and penal substitutionary atonement […]

[…] is just a sample, click the link at the end to continue reading –if you dare! — or just click over now. (The link in the first paragraph takes you directly to the full podcast.) Commentary is by Chris […]

Mark Driscoll, He is a doozy. I for one listen to the Grace Project hear in Georgia and Paul Anderson Walsh may be the best bible teacher I’ve ever heard. Better than Driscoll and much more Christlike. If you Brits aren’t listening to him, why not?

Excuse me, what kind of a Christian witness is it to call a brother a doozy? Is it Christlike to do that? You love Driscoll if you obey Christ. How can Driscoll constructively apply your criticism to his life? He can’t.

1) This article is full of baloney.
2) Driscoll is right. This guy is squishy and wishy-washy and sadly reflects the Christian culture of GBR.
3) This interview was done to take cheap potshots at Driscoll that are old and stale to get ratings.
4) There was zero hostility or abuse on the part of Driscoll. And if you say otherwise you’re making it up and need to get your head checked.

Have just found this thread.I regularly listen to “Unbelievable” and Premier radio. Mark Driscoll may not realise that Premier is the only notable Christian broadcaster.Justin tries to be fair on his program.Nevertheless both myself and my wife agree with Mark regarding the lack of boldness in the UK church.Can anyone out there name national preachers , the existence of which would refute Driscolls claim. I can’t. The UK is a moral mess and we are not simply wandering into into the mire, we are legislating for it. American preachers ,at least those broadcasting on Premier, are far bolder than British preachers and would Piers Morgan interview any Christian on his UK TV programs. I doubt it. I heard David Pawson, some 20 years ago, stating that within a decade any Christian who held to Biblical teaching regarding male leadership within the church,the uniqueness of Christ as the one mediator between man and God and orthodox views on homosexuality would face persecution within 10 yrs. I belong to an “evangelical ,charasmatic Cof E church and sin, wrath,Hell judgment etc are never mentioned.We are welcome to participate in the “Big Society” but not to speak against the increasing immorality in which this nation is sinking.Mark may be an imperfect saved sinner but he gives straight forward answers unlike the evasive Rob Bell ( also interviewed by Justin)

9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibilities of being a parent.

8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “un…natural” for them to do other forms of work.

7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievment of creation.

6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments.

5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshipers.

4. To be ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more frequently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.

3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.

2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths, repair the church roof, and maybe even lead the singing on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church.

1. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus, his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinated position that all men should take.

[…] was going to write on Mark Driscoll’s recent tirade against British journalist/radio show host Justin Brierley (a host who I very much like). I didn’t because I couldn’t bring myself to listen to […]